pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) A trade was accepted in a league I'm in that just baffles me. One side traded: DeAndre Hopkins Other side traded: Matt Ryan Dez Bryant This is a 12 team PPR league, by the way. Also, slight customization in scoring favors QBs a bit more than in a standard league. I feel this trade is insane and overwhelmingly lopsided. I hop it gets shot down and I put in my vote against it. Thoughts? Am I missing something here? Edited October 20, 2016 by pgrosse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Has anyone noticed that every time someone lists a supposedly unfair trade that the trade is always super fair? I believe in the ability of leagues to veto, but the examples given on this message board are never unfair. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Author Share Posted October 20, 2016 Has anyone noticed that every time someone lists a supposedly unfair trade that the trade is always super fair? I believe in the ability of leagues to veto, but the examples given on this message board are never unfair. I respect your opinion, but may I ask as to the specifics as to why you think it's fair? I really would like some insight on what I'm missing. I consider myself open-minded on most trades, and really feel that I'm missing something obvious if most feel it is a fair trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdybaz Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I don't think it's necessarily unfair, tbh. I mean, I don't know the two teams' rosters, but I assume the Bryant owner is sick and tired of carrying a broken WR with a rookie QB (who has admittedly played well, but you get my point) on his roster, and probably has a better QB than Ryan starting, who may have even already had his bye. So, he's got Ryan sitting on his bench and decides he wants to improve his roster, so he takes a shot at Hopkins and gambles he'll improve his chemistry with Osweilder by trading Dez and Ryan, both useless to him at this point. If this is the case, and again I don't know since you didn't post the rosters, it's a fair trade and doesn't deserve to be vetoed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) I respect your opinion, but may I ask as to the specifics as to why you think it's fair? I really would like some insight on what I'm missing. I consider myself open-minded on most trades, and really feel that I'm missing something obvious if most feel it is a fair trade. Which side is getting the better deal and why? Edited October 20, 2016 by michaelredd9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Author Share Posted October 20, 2016 I don't think it's necessarily unfair, tbh. I mean, I don't know the two teams' rosters, but I assume the Bryant owner is sick and tired of carrying a broken WR with a rookie QB (who has admittedly played well, but you get my point) on his roster, and probably has a better QB than Ryan starting, who may have even already had his bye. So, he's got Ryan sitting on his bench and decides he wants to improve his roster, so he takes a shot at Hopkins and gambles he'll improve his chemistry with Osweilder by trading Dez and Ryan, both useless to him at this point. If this is the case, and again I don't know since you didn't post the rosters, it's a fair trade and doesn't deserve to be vetoed. I appreciate the reply. To the one owner's credit, he does have Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan, so from his end he likely views one as expendable. He also appears to not have an available WR for his matchup this week (historically the owner only makes transactions and waiver moves to fill in an empty spot due to bye weeks). So, it makes sense to acquire a WR through a trade. The other team has no QB at this point, as they had Palmer (only) and you know how that story has gone. I do see the value in it for each team, but thought the value itself was lop-sided. I can see the arguments you are making and see how that could lend some justification to the trade. Perhaps I'm a little biased because I've seen a handful of trades where one person seems to come out at a major advantage. So, I'm on the lookout for that sort of thing (as open-minded as I try to be!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdybaz Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Makes perfect sense when you explain it like that too. I think you're just overreacting a little because of the previous lopsided issues, but this one seems fair enough when taken in context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chloroform Rx Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I see this as being so even that I'm actually unsure of which one I would rather have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Author Share Posted October 20, 2016 Which side is getting the better deal and why? From where I'm sitting, I feel getting both Matt Ryan and Dez Bryant for DeAndre Hopkins alone is a bit of a steal. My argument: Flynn is the top scorer by far in our league. Of course, he will regress back for sure, as I doubt his current production is sustainable. However, I would argue he is currently a high value commodity. Dez Bryant is injured, of course, but is likely to return in the next few weeks (should we believe the most recent news). While it is hard to determine what his chemistry with Dak will be, he still has some inherent value (although admittedly in my opinion is less than the value of Hopkins, of course). I have had DeAndre on my team two of the past three years and love the guy as a fantasy wideout, but so far with Osweiller, he's production has dipped a bit. I'm sure he'll be productive in the long run, but getting both players in return for Hopkins alone still seems unbalanced to me. However, a previous poster provided an argument of it being mutually beneficial to both teams. That's an argument I can buy into (and be convinced of). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I appreciate the reply. To the one owner's credit, he does have Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan, so from his end he likely views one as expendable. He also appears to not have an available WR for his matchup this week (historically the owner only makes transactions and waiver moves to fill in an empty spot due to bye weeks). So, it makes sense to acquire a WR through a trade. The other team has no QB at this point, as they had Palmer (only) and you know how that story has gone. I do see the value in it for each team, but thought the value itself was lop-sided. I can see the arguments you are making and see how that could lend some justification to the trade. This post explains why it's a good trade but you voted against it anyway 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelredd9 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) Matt Ryan has traditionally been a streaky player. He'll put a few great games together and then go in to a slump. Last year, he had 0 or 1 touchdowns in 10 of 16 games. In 2014, he had 10 touchdowns in the first 4 games. He then had 7 touchdowns is the next 6 games. In 2013, he had 13 touchdowns in the first 6 games. He then had 13 touchdowns in the final 10 games. In 2012, he had 13 touchdowns in the first 5 games. He then had 9 touchdowns in the next 7 games. Matt Ryan has been a great quarterback in the first 4 to 6 games and only sporadically after. Edited October 20, 2016 by michaelredd9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I see this as being so even that I'm actually unsure of which one I would rather have.same here. Great thread lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Author Share Posted October 20, 2016 Appreciate the feedback! I can see it from a few different perspectives now, which helps. Perhaps I'm just a skeptic by nature! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrosse Posted October 20, 2016 Author Share Posted October 20, 2016 Matt Ryan has traditionally be a streaky player. He'll put a few great games together and go in to a slump. Last year, he had 0 or 1 touchdowns in 10 of 16 games. In 2014, he had 10 touchdowns in the first 4 games. He then had 7 touchdowns is the next 6 games. In 2013, he had 13 touchdowns in the first 6 games. He then had 13 touchdowns in the final 10 games. In 2012, he had 13 touchdowns in the first 5 games. He then had 9 touchdowns in the next 7 games. That's a fair point. I suppose I think more in the aggregate, and believe he will be quite productive, but I certainly can't rule out that he can put together a string of stinkers, either. I also value more recent trends vs. past years, but given that it is a re-occuring theme, it is a reasonable expectation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdko Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Wow...not unfair in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Def. Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 I'm happy the OP responded to this thread. Seriously too many post and no response threads on reasonable trades. Glad to see it hasn't devolved per the norm. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday Couch Potatoe Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Appreciate the feedback! I can see it from a few different perspectives now, which helps. Perhaps I'm just a skeptic by nature! Bingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 From where I'm sitting, I feel getting both Matt Ryan and Dez Bryant for DeAndre Hopkins alone is a bit of a steal. My argument: Flynn is the top scorer by far in our league. Of course, he will regress back for sure, as I doubt his current production is sustainable. However, I would argue he is currently a high value commodity. Dez Bryant is injured, of course, but is likely to return in the next few weeks (should we believe the most recent news). While it is hard to determine what his chemistry with Dak will be, he still has some inherent value (although admittedly in my opinion is less than the value of Hopkins, of course). I have had DeAndre on my team two of the past three years and love the guy as a fantasy wideout, but so far with Osweiller, he's production has dipped a bit. I'm sure he'll be productive in the long run, but getting both players in return for Hopkins alone still seems unbalanced to me. However, a previous poster provided an argument of it being mutually beneficial to both teams. That's an argument I can buy into (and be convinced of). The bolded is all that reall matters, and all you should be considering when you look at the trade. Seems too many owners think the deal is unfair because they would not do it, or because it was 2 for 1, or some other random and reactionary reason. So did you pull your vote against the trade and hope it goes through? Or are you still opposed becaue it improves those teams while you're not makng trades to improve yours? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Appreciate the feedback! I can see it from a few different perspectives now, which helps. Perhaps I'm just a skeptic by nature! I'm pretty skeptical but I don't go around denying trades like that, mostly because we don't allow owners to veto trades. The pair commissioners (I am one) decide it the trades should be denied (has never happend in 20+ years). Hopefully you take all the advice and use it next time you want to vote down a trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XFlash Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 If I was getting team getting Ryan (Score ). I know that many are waiting for ATL to start its annual drop off, but based on this trade, the guy giving up Ryan could do much better. Anyways, if the guy is happy and see Brock as the next coming of PManning then more power to him. Other will base the trade on name recognition and say lopsided. Dez is not healthy and missed a lot of games, not guaranteed when returned. So at this point Dez for Hopkins is a wash. Team getting Ryan is still way ahead, but that does not mean veto. If you do not like the trade, make a better offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doobwaa Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 (edited) cant believe I got sucked in to another one of these Edited October 20, 2016 by doobwaa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gallagorilla Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 can we veto these posts 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colkurtz Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 Most trades are one-sided. The nature of people to overrate their own players means the person offering the trade usually has to overpay to get what he wants. This is a perfectly fair deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdub1988 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 I believe (as well as most of these boards I think) that a trade should never be vetoed unless there is clear evidence of collusion between the owners. This trade seems incredibly even to me. Hopkins goes from having the toughest schedule for a WR the first half of the season to the easiest in the second half. He's a huge buy-low pick for me right now. Ryan's been having a great year but Bryant's been hurt and has a rookie QB. I think Ryan/Bryant is still a bit of a better deal but it really isn't by much. Zero reason to veto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helmholtz_Watson Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 You're not crazy that's def an unfair trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.